High CourtsSingle Bench

Mukesh And Two Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 25 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 MP CK 0169

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anand Pathak, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 378(D), 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 8285 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

59 paragraphs · 425 words

Heard on I.A. No.2078/2020, an application for assisting the prosecution.

On due consideration, the same is allowed.

Shri Gupta, Advocate is permitted to assist the prosecution.

I.A. No.2078/2020 stands disposed of.

With consent heard finally.

The applicants have filed this second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who have been arrested and are in custody since

08.01.2020, in connection with Crime No.11/2020, registered at Police Station Kolaras, District Shivpuri (MP), for the offence punishable under

Sections 378-D and 506 of IPC.

It is the submission of counsel for the applicants that the false case has been registered against them at the instance of prosecutrix who happens to be

their cousin. Because of family dispute regarding land, this device has been adopted. Contents of FIR and statements of witnesses indicate an

improbable events. Even otherwise, at the instance of wife of applicant No.1 another case under Section 376 of IPC has been registered vide Crime

No.13/2020 at same police station. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Confinement amounts to pretrial detention. They undertake to cooperate in

the investigation/trial and make themselves available as and when required. They would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the

prosecution witnesses in any manner. They further undertake to do some community service to purge their misdeeds. Under these grounds, they

prayed for grant of bail to the applicants.

Learned PP for the State opposed the prayer made by the applicants and he prayed for dismissal of this application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as fact situation of the case, but without expressing any opinion on

merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions:-

1.

2.

/

3.

,

, ,

;

4.

,

;

5.

6.

/ ;

7.

1 ,

, 2 3 9

2 , /

, ,

,

( )

,

/

( ) / , ,

:-

, ,

, -

(

/

/

, 2022,

,

, ,

8.

05-05 ( /)

◌ ◌, “ ,

†6-8 / 3-5

, 30

/ ,

( ) “ â€​

/ ,

,

◌ ,

, ,

“ â€​